This is getting ridiculous. John Roberts appears to be a one man constitutional wrecking crew.

According to Salon:

"This weekend CBS News' Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court's conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court's four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.

In response, according to Crawford's story, the four conservatives then independently crafted a highly unusual joint dissent. If so, this would represent a powerful symbolic gesture: Joint Supreme Court opinions are rare. Normally a justice authors an individual opinion, which other justices may choose to join. Jointly authored opinions are reserved for momentous statements of principle, such as in Cooper v. Aaron, when all nine justices jointly authored an opinion declaring that the court's anti-segregation decisions were binding on state governments that disagreed with the court's constitutional interpretations.

It's notable that Crawford's sources insist on the claim that the joint dissent was authored specifically in response to Roberts' majority opinion, without any participation from him at any point in the drafting process that created it. It would, after all, be fairly preposterous for the four dissenters to jointly "author" an opinion that was in large part written originally by the author of the majority opinion to which the joint dissenters were now so flamboyantly objecting.

It makes perfect sense - or, at least it explains what many legal experts were commenting on at the time. The dissent didn’t mention Roberts’ decision for the first three quarters of the ruling - an unprecedented occurrence.

Congress can control the SCOTUS, if it has the will. The bolded part at the end is perhaps the least appreciated sentence in the entire Constitution.

U.S. Constitution, Article 3 Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

"...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Enough Tea Party Patriots could lead a new Congress, and put the SCOTUS back into its box. The USA was never intended to become a tyranny of five judges. It's in the Constitution: The Congress is superior to the SCOTUS. There are NOT "three co-equal branches" as most believe.

Congress could tell the SC: "tax policy is not under your purview. Have a nice day. Next case!"

Just because a tactic has not been attempted before, doesn't mean it can't be done. Mark Levin has talked about this before, and he's hinting at it now, post Roberts.

There is no doubt at all that Scalia and Kenned wrote major sections of their dissent and did a significant portion of the work after Roberts betrayed America. Roberts may have helped with the initial reasoning when he was on the side of the Constitution, but it’s very obviously Scalia who gave certain sections their sharp edge and Kennedy who polished others. Anyone who can read “a few respectful responses to JUSTICE GINSBURG’s dissent . . . saying that there is really no difference between action and inaction . . . a proposition that has never commended itself to the law nor to common sense” and not (1) laugh, and (2) recognize Scalia, has never read Scalia before.

4
posted on 07/04/2012 7:00:29 AM PDT
by Pollster1
(Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)

Roberts` betrayal of the Constitution .. a sellout for 30 pieces of silver represented as media praise... will stand as one of the greatest acts of self-serving treachery ever perpetrated against this nation.

Clarence Thomas refuses to read media reports on cases in the runup to USSC rulings because he doesn`t want public opinion to taint his Constitutional interpretation. Roberts should`ve shown that same level of wisdom.

I can`t blame Bush for this one.. at the time of his nomination, Roberts had nearly firewall credentials as a conservative jurist. He couldn`t have picked a worse time to morph into a David Souter clone.

There are a lot of people not paying any attention at all to politics.

There are a lot of people who care, but only get the make believe media’s version of “every thing is just fine”.

That poster might be a great wake up call to a lot of people, if was just plastered all over the neighborhood, with a big handwritten question over the top “Are we being sold out?”

It seems like that would be such a visceral, self-preservation question that it would wake up some of the people who know that something in our world just isn’t right, but can’t quite put their finger on it.

If we could wake a few more people up before the election, and tell them to take their friends and families to the polls to ‘vote the bastards’ out, we might be able to keep the country from going over the cliff.

I don't know how it can be accomplished but not only must this law be repealed and killed in it's entirety but we MUST also drive a stake through the heart of Roberts' ruling so that it never rears it's freakish, tyrannical head EVER.

To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almightys hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Courts decision on Obamacare.

I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With todays decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the necessary and proper  clause and the federal governments role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts Courts fairness. Thats why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

Next lets look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs dont even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the necessary and proper clause which only applies to enumerated powers in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obamas whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the necessary and proper clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term tax and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they dont want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I havent read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.

That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day!

Type in John Roberts in the FR search box and the photo is in the comments on The Where is John Roberts posted article.

I was curious so I did that.

Has anybody noticed something interesting in the file name?

roberts_scherer_lazarus

I found this a couple days ago:

"During the next two weeks he will be taking part in a summer programme offered by Bostons New England Law. He will also serve as a faculty member at the University of Maltas Foundation for International Studies."

Together with Harvard Professor Richard Lazarus, Dr Roberts will be teaching a credit called the US Supreme Court in Historical Perspective."

"Conservatives were like the queers on campus," said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. "People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don't think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950's."

What a pantload. The evil genius/siliver lining theory has been debunked time and again here at FR. I won’t repeat it.

But I will say that, even if Roberts was thinking in evil genius mode, it was both irresponsible and stupid. Irresponsible because it is not his job to invoke politics in his decision, it was his job to uphold the constitution. Stupid, becuase even though republicans are outraged and thus more energized to throw the bum out, there is absolutely no guarantee they will succeed, in fact, is probably an even bet at this point. If bambi gets re elected we are stuck with bambi care, AND, a court decsion that allows us to be taxed for inactivity.

Roberts decision was a disaster, no amount of turd polishing changes that. We can now try to make lemonade out of lemon, and that is all we can do.

23
posted on 07/04/2012 9:16:50 AM PDT
by HerrBlucher
("The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travelers." GK Chesterton)

Some people are saying that when everyone else is playing checkers, Roberts is playing chess. I say, in this case, he was playing “Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock”. (Tip-o-the-hat to “Big Bang Theory”.) His anti-seizure meds must be out of balance.

Mr. Lazarus, who roomed with Mr. Roberts in Washington for three years after graduation, said: “John was politically conservative. He was comfortable with it, but it didn’t define his friendships. He was very thoughtful, very open talking about ideas. For some people, it’s really a defining characteristic of how they define their lives. That just wasn’t the case back then.”

Lazarus roomed with Roberts at Harvard as well as in Wash DC for three years after graduation. Passing out of Harvard Law in 1979 that places them living together until 1982 or there abouts, proximate to the time of the photo at Martha’s Vineyard.

Don Scherer. ( Donald S. Scherer), the third man in the Martha’s Vineyard photo “sometimes in the 80’s” was provide by Don Scherer. Quick google “harvard Don Scherer” seems to indicates he’s in San Francisco and might have a Facebook page.

32
posted on 07/04/2012 11:36:21 AM PDT
by Covenantor
("Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern." Chesterton)

People here were suggesting that this was JR's problem, but I hadn't paid them much mind... just figured posters were venting their anger and disgust.

These little historical details, though, don't exactly offer any evidence of normalcy. I ran across a post several days ago saying that Roberts' summer trips to Malta are an annual routine. It was just a random post so I didn't think anything of it or care to verify it. But now noticing his "old roommate" is in the picture (literally and figuratively)... ?

Makes one wonder if just before this trip, Roberts was shown photos of previous adventures on Malta. Or maybe he was shown a nice gift that might be sent to his kids, a book called "Daddy's Roommate", pics included.

*Something* sure made this guy jump the shark.

33
posted on 07/04/2012 8:21:36 PM PDT
by Ezekiel
(The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)

I became curious in much the same way as you, trying to find the source of that Martha's Vineyard photo. Given what's been quickly assembled here since the SC ruling I'm starting to see the 2005 NYT piece on Roberts in a new light. That choice of photo and its implication seems unusual to me now. That Don (Donald S.) Scherer volunteered to release that particular photo also struck me as odd, almost as if he wanted to blow Roberts cover.

And this photo of Robert Lazarus shows that he clearly has ties to the Obama machine.

With the evidence of both Roberts and Lazarus at the Malta teaching venue, it may well be the indirect back channel leak to the White House.

Another item, might be significant or not, the lack of any indication that Roberts was accompanied by his wife and children to Malta. To me that's an ideal family vacation abroad. Daddy's travel and hotel expenses aren't greatly increased by the addition of the family and the Malta island site filled with history makes for an excellent vacation. But it seems that's not the sort of down time Roberts had in mind.

And this photo of Robert Lazarus shows that he clearly has ties to the Obama machine.

"at the Request of the President"

I keep looking at that photo and thinking that this guy named Lazarus is barely awake, as if he were suddenly roused from a dirt nap. Or else he's got one foot on a banana peel and the other in the grave.

And this was the photo UCI chose for their promo? He looks drugged!

Wonder what else he does "at the Request of the President."

40
posted on 07/05/2012 4:27:00 AM PDT
by Ezekiel
(The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)

I do know Malta is a summer beach party hot spot. I knew an Italian guy who went there. When I met him he was travelling around Europe meeting up with the women he met in Malta.

I had never heard the University of Malta was a beacon of academia attracting Harvard professors and USSC justices.

Here is a piece on the lack of academic rigor at the University of Malta:

"The QS World University Rankings is a ranking of the worlds top 500 universities by Quacquarelli Symonds using a methodology that has been published annually since 2004. According to the last research (2010-2011), our University does not feature in a list of 600+ universities."

A picture caption on Sunday with a front-page article about the college years of John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, misspelled the given name of a friend with whom he was shown skiing in the late 1970’s. The friend is Rob Saltzman, not Salzman.

LA Observer, 2008:

Los Angeles police commissioner Robert Saltzman was married on Saturday night to Edward Pierce, who retired as the general counsel and vice president for legal affairs of GeoCities. In addition to serving on the Board of Police Commissioners, Saltzman is associate dean of USC’s Gould School of Law. He was formerly on the city ethics commission, and going way back was senior deputy to county Supervisor Ed Edelman. The New York Times story said that the marriage took place at a home in Beverly Hills.

My take is that someone (Scherer?) arranged for multiple photos of Roberts with his gay “friends” to be published in the NY Times. The question is why? Inside joke? Not so subtle attempt to make him look gay?

Whatever the reason, it is now clear we are dealing with Souter 2.0 . Either by force or choice he will be on the leftist team for all the important cases.

President Barack Obama announced that USC Gould School of Law Associate Dean Robert M. Saltzman will be appointed to the Commission on Presidential Scholars, a group of distinguished citizens charged with selecting and honoring the nation?s top graduating high school seniors.

Saltzman, an expert on the political process and legal and professional ethics, oversees USC Law’s Academic Support Program. He has worked in a variety of public service capacities and currently is a commissioner for the Los Angeles Police Department. He also serves on the board of directors of the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute.

?I am honored to be able to provide this public service, especially because of the role the Presidential Scholars play in the development of leadership for our nation’s future,? Saltzman said.

47
posted on 07/05/2012 9:45:33 AM PDT
by Covenantor
("Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern." Chesterton)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.